Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The jury did not even agree on what the predicate crime was, which is necessary for this conviction of falsifying documents to be a felony. If there is no predicate crime it would be a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations would already be expired so it would not be possible to charge someone anymore. So the jury did not have a unanimous verdict on the predicate crime which means the conviction raises constitutional issues.
You are still stupidly wrong with this bullshit.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So can he claim that paying off the porn star to cover up his tawdry affair was part of his official duties even though he wasn't President yet? The right-wing justices on SCOTUS would go for it.
No, that's not what Trump is claiming. Rather, he's claiming that some of the evidence used by the prosecution involved his official acts and is therefore inadmissible. If Judge Merchan can sever that evidence from the jury's verdict, then the verdict stands. If he can't, then he has to throw it out.
His Tweets stupidly admitting what he did were not official acts. He wasn’t prosecuted for any official acts. The criminal actions were agreeing to pay for a NDA during the campaign and then falsifying business records to cover up the business, tax, and campaign finance fraud in the reimbursements to Cohen. None of that was official. None of the evidence was from official actions.
Anonymous wrote:The jury did not even agree on what the predicate crime was, which is necessary for this conviction of falsifying documents to be a felony. If there is no predicate crime it would be a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations would already be expired so it would not be possible to charge someone anymore. So the jury did not have a unanimous verdict on the predicate crime which means the conviction raises constitutional issues.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So can he claim that paying off the porn star to cover up his tawdry affair was part of his official duties even though he wasn't President yet? The right-wing justices on SCOTUS would go for it.
No, that's not what Trump is claiming. Rather, he's claiming that some of the evidence used by the prosecution involved his official acts and is therefore inadmissible. If Judge Merchan can sever that evidence from the jury's verdict, then the verdict stands. If he can't, then he has to throw it out.
Anonymous wrote:The jury did not even agree on what the predicate crime was, which is necessary for this conviction of falsifying documents to be a felony. If there is no predicate crime it would be a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations would already be expired so it would not be possible to charge someone anymore. So the jury did not have a unanimous verdict on the predicate crime which means the conviction raises constitutional issues.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Other states know it's not a legit case.
New York can play games and the DNC can import the number three at the DOJ, Michael Colangelo, to prosecute their top political rival.
These are Soviet style show trials. SCOTUS will probably schwack the whole case altogether.
Trump is a felon.
Anonymous wrote:So can he claim that paying off the porn star to cover up his tawdry affair was part of his official duties even though he wasn't President yet? The right-wing justices on SCOTUS would go for it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These convictions will be overturned by the court because of issues with due process. Convicting someone of a crime without specifically identifying what the underlying misconduct was is not legal. Merchan told the jury that they did not need to make a unanimous agreement on which component of his conduct they found him guilty on. It will be overturned. I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him, but the conviction is likely invalid also uses and untested legal theory that poses constitutional questions.
No, it's all normal and common. These aren't unusual charges or convictions. The only unusual part is that Trump finally got caught.
It is not common or normal practice for prosecution. Even CNN is saying that this is a “novel and untested legal theory” . This is not a Fox News talking point there are multiple news networks that have journalistic integrity which have pointed out issues with the non unanimous nature of this conviction.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These convictions will be overturned by the court because of issues with due process. Convicting someone of a crime without specifically identifying what the underlying misconduct was is not legal. Merchan told the jury that they did not need to make a unanimous agreement on which component of his conduct they found him guilty on. It will be overturned. I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him, but the conviction is likely invalid also uses and untested legal theory that poses constitutional questions.
No, it's all normal and common. These aren't unusual charges or convictions. The only unusual part is that Trump finally got caught.
It is not common or normal practice for prosecution. Even CNN is saying that this is a “novel and untested legal theory” . This is not a Fox News talking point there are multiple news networks that have journalistic integrity which have pointed out issues with the non unanimous nature of this conviction.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These convictions will be overturned by the court because of issues with due process. Convicting someone of a crime without specifically identifying what the underlying misconduct was is not legal. Merchan told the jury that they did not need to make a unanimous agreement on which component of his conduct they found him guilty on. It will be overturned. I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him, but the conviction is likely invalid also uses and untested legal theory that poses constitutional questions.
No, it's all normal and common. These aren't unusual charges or convictions. The only unusual part is that Trump finally got caught.
Anonymous wrote:Other states know it's not a legit case.
New York can play games and the DNC can import the number three at the DOJ, Michael Colangelo, to prosecute their top political rival.
These are Soviet style show trials. SCOTUS will probably schwack the whole case altogether.